HCAMP ImPACT Data
Data Summary
The data summary section provides information on the total number of ImPACT tests administered from 2000 - 2020. The 2010 year displayed on the plots and tables represents the years 2000 - 2010. Within the data summary section, the total number of administered ImPACT tests is broken down by specific variables included in the ImPACT dataset, including participant gender, participant sport, and the type of test administered (e.g. baseline, post-injury 1, post-injury 2).
Gender Table
Gender Plot
Sport Table
Most Tested Sports
Least Tested Sports
Test Type Table
Total Tests
Total number of ImPACT tests administered 2000-2020
++ indicates invalid Basline tests
Test Plot
What is the percent increase in composite score from first baseline to second baseline administration?
To calculate the percent increase from first to second baseline test administrations, the dataset was manipulated in the following ways to isolate individuals who received two baseline test administrations:
The
test_typevariable was filtered to only include valid baseline test administrations.Individuals who completed two baseline tests were identified and all other individuals were removed.
The scores of the individuals’ five composite scores from both baselines were spread across the data set to appear on one row per individual.
Individual data sets for the five composite scores were created to calculate the difference in baseline 2 to baseline 1 administration.
Individuals who did not score higher on the second baseline administration were removed from the individual composite score data sets.
The five composite score data sets were joined together to create a new data frame of individuals who achieved a positve gain on at least one composite score on the second baseline test administration.
This combined data frame was filtered through to identify individuals who achieved a higher score on all five composite tests on the second baseline administration.
18,739 individuals completed two baseline assessments. 18,556 individuals (99.02%) achieved a higher score on at least one out of five composite scores on the second baseline assessment. 1,130 individuals (6.03%) achieved a higher score on all five composite scores on the second baseline assessment.
Five composite scores:
1. Verbal Memory Composite Score
2. Visual Memory Composite Score
3. Impulse Control Composite Score
4. Reaction Time Composite Score
5. Visual Motor Composite ScoreVerbal Memory Composite Score - Baseline 2 Composite Score Increase Only
11,034 individuals (58.88%) increased their verbal memory composite score on the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 60.66 points with a standard deviation of 14.12. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 83.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 71.54 points with a standard deviation of 9.52. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 83.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 10.89 points with a standard deviation of 12.58 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 82.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 202.48% increase with a standard deviation of a 1,165.49% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Verbal Memory Composite Score - Increase on all Five Composite Scores
This section summarizes the verbal memory composite score for the 1,130 individuals who achieved a higher score on all five composite scores of the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 60.97 points with a standard deviation of 13.70. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 83.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 72.2 points with a standard deviation of 9.34. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 83.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 11.23 points with a standard deviation of 12.28 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 82.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 176.43% increase with a standard deviation of a 1,084.81% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Verbal Memory Composite Score Raw Data
The data set below contains the raw data for all individuals who achieved a higher Verbal Memory Composite Score on the second baseline test administration.
Verbal Memory Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean verbal memory composite scores of all 18,739 individuals who completed two baseline assessments. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the second baseline test administration (M = 65.83) than the first baseline test administration (M = 64.81), t(18737) = -7.328, p < .01.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: mem_verbal_1 and mem_verbal_2
## t = -7.328, df = 18737, p-value = 2.431e-13
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -1.2838497 -0.7419801
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -1.012915Baseline 1 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 1 Total Score Histogram
Baseline 2 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 2 Total Score Histogram
Visual Memory Composite Score - Baseline 2 Composite Score Increase Only
11,692 individuals (62.39%) increased their visual memory composite score on the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 49.68 points with a standard deviation of 12.06. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 79.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 60.90 points with a standard deviation of 10.20. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 79.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 11.23 points with a standard deviation of 9.15 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 78.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 54.07% increase with a standard deviation of a 436.54% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Visual Memory Composite Score - Increase on all Five Composite Scores
This section summarizes the visual memory composite score for the 1,130 individuals who achieved a higher score on all five composite scores of the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 49.81 points with a standard deviation of 11.91. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 79.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 60.91 points with a standard deviation of 9.68. The minimum score was observed to be 28, and the maximum score was observed to be 79.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 11.10 points with a standard deviation of 9.26 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 82.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 62.46% increase with a standard deviation of a 498.05% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Visual Memory Composite Score Raw Data
The data set below contains the raw data for all individuals who achieved a higher Visual Memory Composite Score on the second baseline test administration.
Visual Memory Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean visual memory composite scores of all 18,739 individuals who completed two baseline assessments. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the second baseline test administration (M = 56.70) than the first baseline test administration (M = 53.38), t(18738) = -33.146, p < .01.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: mem_visual_1 and mem_visual_2
## t = -33.146, df = 18738, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -3.51992 -3.12686
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -3.32339Baseline 1 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 1 Total Score Histogram
Baseline 2 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 2 Total Score Histogram
Impulse Control Composite Score - Baseline 2 Composite Score Increase Only
10,232 individuals (54.58%) increased their impulse control composite score on the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 21.83 points with a standard deviation of 20.69. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 74.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 46.04 points with a standard deviation of 22.65. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 74.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 24.21 points with a standard deviation of 21.67 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 73.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 475.68% increase with a standard deviation of a 808.37% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Impulse Control Composite Score - Increase on all Five Composite Scores
This section summarizes the impulse control composite score for the 1,130 individuals who achieved a higher score on all five composite scores of the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 20.5 points with a standard deviation of 20.40. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 74.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 45.33 points with a standard deviation of 22.41. The minimum score was observed to be 1, and the maximum score was observed to be 74.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 24.82 points with a standard deviation of 22.17 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 73.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 461.95% increase with a standard deviation of a 683.04% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Impulse Control Composite Score Raw Data
The data set below contains the raw data for all individuals who achieved a higher Impulse Control Composite Score on the second baseline test administration.
Impulse Control Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the impulse control composite scores of all 18,739 individuals who completed two baseline assessments. On average, the difference in performance between the first baseline test administration (M = 33.81) and second baseline test administration (M = 33.97) was not statistically significant, t(18738) = -0.634, p = .526.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: impulse_control_1 and impulse_control_2
## t = -0.63447, df = 18738, p-value = 0.5258
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.6411501 0.3275795
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -0.1567853Baseline 1 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 1 Total Score Histogram
Baseline 2 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 2 Total Score Histogram
Reaction Time Composite Score - Baseline 2 Composite Score Increase Only
7,654 individuals (40.83%) increased their reaction time composite score on the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 26.89 points with a standard deviation of 7.12. The minimum score was observed to be 4, and the maximum score was observed to be 77.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 33.27 points with a standard deviation of 10.79. The minimum score was observed to be 11, and the maximum score was observed to be 160.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 6.38 points with a standard deviation of 7.91 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 145.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 25.58% increase with a standard deviation of a 33.53% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Reaction Time Composite Score - Increase on all Five Composite Scores
This section summarizes the reaction time composite score for the 1,130 individuals who achieved a higher score on all five composite scores of the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 27.15 points with a standard deviation of 7.33. The minimum score was observed to be 7, and the maximum score was observed to be 65.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 33.18 points with a standard deviation of 10.12. The minimum score was observed to be 13, and the maximum score was observed to be 95.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 6.03 points with a standard deviation of 6.94 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 58.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 24.04% increase with a standard deviation of a 28.45% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Reaction Time Composite Score Raw Data
The data set below contains the raw data for all individuals who achieved a higher Reaction Time Composite Score on the second baseline test administration.
Reaction Time Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the reaction time composite scores of all 18,739 individuals who completed two baseline assessments. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the first baseline test administration (M = 31.08) than the second baseline test administration (M = 28.87), t(18737) = 28.276, p < .01.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: reaction_time_1 and reaction_time_2
## t = 28.276, df = 18737, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 2.058195 2.364796
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## 2.211495Baseline 1 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 1 Total Score Histogram
Baseline 2 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 2 Total Score Histogram
Visual Motor Composite Score - Baseline 2 Composite Score Increase Only
14,376 individuals (76.68%) increased their visual motor composite score on the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 1,026.47 points with a standard deviation of 291.26. The minimum score was observed to be 4, and the maximum score was observed to be 1,894.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 1,274.93 points with a standard deviation of 281.13. The minimum score was observed to be 58, and the maximum score was observed to be 1,918.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 248.46 points with a standard deviation of 178.51 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 1,689.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 39.45% increase with a standard deviation of a 193.7% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Visual Motor Composite Score - Increase on all Five Composite Scores
This section summarizes the reaction time composite score for the 1,130 individuals who achieved a higher score on all five composite scores of the second baseline test administration.
Baseline 1 Summary
The average Baseline 1 score was observed to be 1,033.72 points with a standard deviation of 290.53. The minimum score was observed to be 31, and the maximum score was observed to be 1,824.
Baseline 1 Histogram
Baseline 2 Summary
The average Baseline 2 score was observed to be 1,251.76 points with a standard deviation of 284.11. The minimum score was observed to be 484, and the maximum score was observed to be 1,911.
Baseline 2 Histogram
Score Increase Summary
The average point increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be 218.04 points with a standard deviation of 160.28 points. The mininum point increase was observed to be 0, while the maximum point increase was observed to be 1,162.
Score Increase Histogram
Percent Increase Summary
The average percent increase from baseline 1 to baseline 2 was observed to be a 34% increase with a standard deviation of a 121.56% increase.
Percent Increase Density Plot
Visual Motor Composite Score Raw Data
The data set below contains the raw data for all individuals who achieved a higher Visual Motor Composite Score on the second baseline test administration.
Visual Motor Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the reaction time composite scores of all 18,739 individuals who completed two baseline assessments. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the second baseline test administration (M = 1,222.16) than the first baseline test administration (M = 1,066.37), t(18738) = -87.458, p < .01.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: visual_motor_1 and visual_motor_2
## t = -87.458, df = 18738, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -159.2782 -152.2953
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -155.7868Baseline 1 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 1 Total Score Histogram
Baseline 2 Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 2 Total Score Histogram
Paired T-Test Summary
The results of the paired t-tests across all five composite scores for comparison of baseline performance identified that individuals, on average, scored significantly higher on the second baseline test administration of the verbal memory, visual memory, and visual motor composites. Conversely, individuals were identified to score, on average, significantly higher on the first baseline test administration of the reaction time composite. The difference in baseline performance on the impulse control composite between first and second test administrations was identified to not be significant.
What is the duration of time between baseline test administrations?
Table 1
Of the 18,556 individuals who received two baseline tests and scored higher on at least one composite score on the second baseline administration, the average number of days between test dates was observed to be 637.78 days with a standard deviation of 246.56 days. The minimum number of days between baseline test administrations was observed to be 0 days, while the maximum number of days was observed to be 2,737 days.
Plot 1
Table 2
Of the 1,130 individuals who received two baseline tests and scored higher on all five composite scores on the second baseline administration, the average number of days between test dates was observed to be 646.73 days with a standard deviation of 245.79 days. The minimum number of days between baseline test administrations was observed to be 0 days, while the maximum number of days was observed to be 1,533 days.
Plot 2
Table 3
Of the 18,739 individuals who completed two baseline assessments, the average number of days between test dates was observed to be 637.31 days with a standard deviation of 246.49 days. The minium number of days between baseline test administrations was observed to be 0 days, while the maximum number of days was observed to be 2,737 days.
Plot 3
Time Difference Raw Data
The data set below contains the raw data for the time difference between baseline test administrations for all 18,739 individuals who completed two baseline assessments.
What is the relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and the difference in obtained composite scores?
Verbal Memory
A linear regression model was utilized to evaluate the relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and the difference in verbal memory composite scores between the two baseline assessments. The results of the model were not significant (p > .05) and accounted for less that .01% of the variance in the difference between baseline verbal memory composite scores. Therefore, it is suggested there is not a relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and difference in verbal memory composite scores.
Scatterplot
Model
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = memory_verbal_diff ~ time_between, data = mod_baselines)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -83.417 -7.013 0.920 8.607 81.183
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 0.5686863 0.3831852 1.484 0.138
## time_between 0.0006970 0.0005608 1.243 0.214
##
## Residual standard error: 18.92 on 18736 degrees of freedom
## (1 observation deleted due to missingness)
## Multiple R-squared: 8.246e-05, Adjusted R-squared: 2.909e-05
## F-statistic: 1.545 on 1 and 18736 DF, p-value: 0.2139Visual Memory
A linear regression model was utilized to evaluate the relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and the difference in visual memory composite scores between the two baseline assessments. The results of the model were not significant (p > .05) and accounted for less that .01% of the variance in the difference between baseline visual memory composite scores. Therefore, it is suggested there is not a relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and difference in visual memory composite scores.
Scatterplot
Model
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = memory_visual_diff ~ time_between, data = mod_baselines)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -81.360 -8.347 -0.185 8.627 74.887
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 3.0162725 0.2779613 10.851 <2e-16 ***
## time_between 0.0004819 0.0004068 1.185 0.236
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 13.73 on 18737 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 7.489e-05, Adjusted R-squared: 2.153e-05
## F-statistic: 1.403 on 1 and 18737 DF, p-value: 0.2362Impulse Control
A linear regression model was utilized to evaluate the relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and the difference in impulse control composite scores between the two baseline assessments. The results of the model were not significant (p > .05) and accounted for less that .01% of the variance in the difference between baseline impulse control composite scores. Therefore, it is suggested there is not a relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and difference in impulse control composite scores.
Scatterplot
Model
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = impulse_control_diff ~ time_between, data = mod_baselines)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -73.21 -22.17 -0.18 21.82 72.94
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -0.025492 0.685083 -0.037 0.970
## time_between 0.000286 0.001003 0.285 0.775
##
## Residual standard error: 33.83 on 18737 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 4.343e-06, Adjusted R-squared: -4.903e-05
## F-statistic: 0.08138 on 1 and 18737 DF, p-value: 0.7754Reaction Time
A linear regression model was utilized to evaluate the relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and the difference in reaction time composite scores between the two baseline assessments. The results of the model were significant (p < .01); however, the model only accounted for less that .20% of the variance in the difference between baseline reaction time composite scores. Therefore, it is suggested there is not a strong relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and difference in reaction time composite scores.
Scatterplot
Model
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = reaction_time_diff ~ time_between, data = mod_baselines)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -142.605 -5.227 0.207 5.317 147.399
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -0.937068 0.216593 -4.326 1.52e-05 ***
## time_between -0.002000 0.000317 -6.309 2.88e-10 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 10.69 on 18736 degrees of freedom
## (1 observation deleted due to missingness)
## Multiple R-squared: 0.00212, Adjusted R-squared: 0.002066
## F-statistic: 39.8 on 1 and 18736 DF, p-value: 2.877e-10Visual Motor
A linear regression model was utilized to evaluate the relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and the difference in visual motor composite scores between the two baseline assessments. The results of the model were significant (p < .05) and accounted for 2.2% of the variance in the difference between baseline visual motor composite scores. The model suggests that a one day increase in the number of days between baseline assessments was associated with a 0.15 point increase on the second baseline assessment. However, the rather small adjusted r value (.022) suggests there is not a strong relation between the duration of time between baseline test administrations and difference in visual motor composite scores.
Scatterplot
Model
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = visual_motor_diff ~ time_between, data = mod_baselines)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -2058.94 -142.81 0.96 144.45 1519.11
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 62.817487 4.884309 12.86 <2e-16 ***
## time_between 0.145878 0.007148 20.41 <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 241.2 on 18737 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.02175, Adjusted R-squared: 0.02169
## F-statistic: 416.5 on 1 and 18737 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16What is the percent decrease in composite score from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration?
The data set contains 7,952 individuals who completed one baseline assessment and one post-injury 1 assessment. This section provides details on the comparison scores between each composite score. When merging the data sets of the individual composite scores, 7,748 individuals (97.43%) were identified to have scored higher on the baseline assessment on at least one composite score, while 230 (2.89%) individuals were identified to have scored higher on all five baseline composite scores. Conversely, 7,722 (97.11%) individuals were identified to have scored higher on the post-injury 1 assessment on at least one composite score, while 204 (2.57%) individuals were identified to have scored higher on all five post-injury 1 scores. The Reaction Time and Visual Motor composite scores were the two identified domains where a greater number of individuals scored higher on the post-injury 1 assessment than the baseline assessment.
Verbal Memory Composite Score
The verbal memory composite score data set contains 7,951 individuals, suggesting the existence of a single missing score for one participant. 4,344 individuals (54.63%) were identified to have obtained a higher baseline score, while 3,607 (45.37%) individuals were identified to obtain a higher post-injury score.
Higher Baseline Score Summary
Of the 4,344 individuals who scored higher on the baseline test administration, the baseline mean verbal memory composite score was observed to be 69.71 points with a standard deviation of 9.9 points. The post-injury 1 mean verbal memory composite score was observed to be 56.07 points with a standard deviation of 17.1 points. The average point decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 13.64 points with a standard deviation of 15.14 points. The minimum point decrease was 0 points, while the maximum point decrease was 82 points. The average percent decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 19.56% decrease with a standard deviation of a 21.15% decrease.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Decrease Summary
Percent Decrease Summary
Score Decrease Histogram
Higher Baseline Raw Data
Higher Post-Injury 1 Score Summary
Of the 3,607 individuals who scored higher on the post-injury 1 test administration, the baseline mean verbal memory composite score was observed to be 59.53 points with a standard deviation of 15.15 points. The post-injury 1 mean verbal memory composite score was observed to be 71.7 points with a standard deviation of 8.58 points. The average point increase from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 12.18 points with a standard deviation of 13.83 points. The minimum point increase was 1 point, while the maximum point increase was 82 points. The average percent increase from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 285.09% increase with a standard deviation of a 1,365.64% increase.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Increase Summary
Percent Increase Summary
Score Increase Histogram
Higher Post-Injury 1 Raw Data
Verbal Memory Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean verbal memory composite scores of all 7,951 individuals who completed a baseline and post-injury 1 test. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the baseline test administration (M = 65.09) than the post-injury 1 test administration (M = 63.16), t(7950) = 8.85, p < .01.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: pi_mem_verbal_baseline and pi_mem_verbal_pi
## t = 8.8478, df = 7950, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 1.500007 2.353847
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## 1.926927Baseline Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline Total Score Histogram
Post-Injury Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline 2 Total Score Histogram
Visual Memory Composite Score
The visual memory composite score data set contains 7,952 individuals. 4,404 individuals (55.38%) were identified to have obtained a higher baseline score, while 3,548 individuals (44.62%) were identified to obtain a higher post-injury score.
Higher Baseline Score Summary
Of the 4,404 individuals who scored higher on the baseline test administration, the baseline mean visual memory composite score was observed to be 57.91 points with a standard deviation of 10.92 points. The post-injury 1 mean visual memory composite score was observed to be 45.79 points with a standard deviation of 13.4 points. The average point decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 12.12 points with a standard deviation of 10.33 points. The minimum point decrease was 0 points, while the maximum point decrease was 78 points. The average percent decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 21.01% decrease with a standard deviation of a 17.24% decrease.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Decrease Summary
Percent Decrease Summary
Score Decrease Histogram
Higher Baseline Raw Data
Higher Post-Injury 1 Score Summary
Of the 3,548 individuals who scored higher on the post-injury 1 test administration, the baseline mean visual memory composite score was observed to be 48.06 points with a standard deviation of 12.44 points. The post-injury 1 mean visual memory composite score was observed to be 59.23 points with a standard deviation of 10.56 points. The average point increase from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 11.17 points with a standard deviation of 9.01 points. The minimum point increase was 1 point, while the maximum point increase was 78 points. The average percent increase from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 65.19% increase with a standard deviation of a 482.34% increase.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Increase Summary
Percent Increase Summary
Score Increase Histogram
Higher Post-Injury 1 Raw Data
Visual Memory Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean visual memory composite scores of all 7,952 individuals who completed a baseline and post-injury 1 test. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the baseline test administration (M = 53.51) than the post-injury 1 test administration (M = 51.79), t(7951) = 10.18, p < .01.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: pi_mem_visual_baseline and pi_mem_visual_pi
## t = 10.18, df = 7951, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 1.395469 2.061020
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## 1.728244Baseline Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline Total Score Histogram
Post-Injury Total Descriptive Statistics
Post-Injury Total Score Histogram
Impulse Control Composite Score
The impulse control composite score data set contains 7,952 individuals. 4,498 individuals (56.56%) were identified to have obtained a higher baseline score, while 3,454 individuals (43.34%) were identified to obtain a higher post-injury score.
Higher Baseline Score Summary
Of the 4,498 individuals who scored higher on the baseline test administration, the baseline mean impulse control composite score was observed to be 45.65 points with a standard deviation of 23.12 points. The post-injury 1 mean impulse control score was observed to be 21.02 points with a standard deviation of 20.27 points. The average point decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 24.62 points with a standard deviation of 21.79 points. The minimum point decrease was 0 points, while the maximum point decrease was 73 points. The average percent decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 50.94% decrease with a standard deviation of a 34.29% decrease.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Decrease Summary
Percent Decrease Summary
Score Decrease Histogram
Higher Baseline Raw Data
Higher Post-Injury 1 Score Summary
Of the 3,454 individuals who scored higher on the post-injury 1 test administration, the baseline mean impulse control composite score was observed to be 17.9 points with a standard deviation of 18.43 points. The post-injury 1 mean impulse control composite score was observed to be 47.08 points with a standard deviation of 22.4 points. The average point increase from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 29.17 points with a standard deviation of 20.79 points. The minimum point increase was 1 point, while the maximum point increase was 73 points. The average percent increase from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 559.73% increase with a standard deviation of a 828.56% increase.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Increase Summary
Percent Increase Summary
Score Increase Histogram
Higher Post-Injury 1 Raw Data
Impulse Control Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean impulse control composite scores of all 7,952 individuals who completed a baseline and post-injury 1 test. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the baseline test administration (M = 33.60) than the post-injury 1 test administration (M = 32.34), t(7951) = 3.28, p = .001.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: pi_impulse_control_baseline and pi_impulse_control_pi
## t = 3.2772, df = 7951, p-value = 0.001053
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.5045899 2.0067280
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## 1.255659Baseline Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline Total Score Histogram
Post-Injury Total Descriptive Statistics
Post-Injury Total Score Histogram
Reaction Time Composite Score
The reaction time composite score data set contains 7,952 individuals. 3,930 individuals (49.42%) were identified to have obtained a higher baseline score, while 4.022 individuals (50.58%) were identified to obtain a higher post-injury score.
Higher Baseline Score Summary
Of the 3,930 individuals who scored higher on the baseline test administration, the baseline mean reaction time composite score was observed to be 33.80 points with a standard deviation of 10.74 points. The post-injury 1 mean impulse control score was observed to be 26.83 points with a standard deviation of 7.46 points. The average point decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 6.96 points with a standard deviation of 7.46 points. The minimum point decrease was 0 points, while the maximum point decrease was 107 points. The average percent decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 18.79% decrease with a standard deviation of a 14.08% decrease.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Decrease Summary
Percent Decrease Summary
Score Decrease Histogram
Higher Baseline Raw Data
Higher Post-Injury 1 Score Summary
Of the 4,022 individuals who scored higher on the post-injury 1 test administration, the baseline mean reaction time composite score was observed to be 27.17 points with a standard deviation of 7.24 points. The post-injury 1 mean reaction time composite score was observed to be 37.84 points with a standard deviation of 14.52 points. The average point increase from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 10.67 points with a standard deviation of 12.24 points. The minimum point increase was 1 point, while the maximum point increase was 132 points. The average percent increase from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 41.92% increase with a standard deviation of a 50.45% increase.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Increase Summary
Percent Increase Summary
Score Increase Histogram
Higher Post-Injury 1 Raw Data
Reaction Time Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the mean reaction time composite scores of all 7,952 individuals who completed a baseline and post-injury 1 test. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the post-injury 1 test administration (M = 32.40) than the baseline test administration (M = 30.45), t(7951) = -12.96, p < .001.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: pi_reaction_time_baseline and pi_reaction_time_pi
## t = -12.956, df = 7951, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -2.250192 -1.658762
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -1.954477Baseline Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline Total Score Histogram
Post-Injury Total Descriptive Statistics
Post-Injury Total Score Histogram
Visual Motor Composite Score
The impulse control composite score data set contains 7,951 individuals, suggesting the existence of a single missing score for one participant. 3,494 individuals (43.94%) were identified to have obtained a higher baseline score, while 4,457 individuals (56.06%) were identified to obtain a higher post-injury score.
Higher Baseline Score Summary
Of the 3,494 individuals who scored higher on the baseline test administration, the baseline mean visual motor composite score was observed to be 1,208.94 points with a standard deviation of 292.99 points. The post-injury 1 mean visual motor score was observed to be 969.49 points with a standard deviation of 336.45 points. The average point decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 239.45 points with a standard deviation of 231.25 points. The minimum point decrease was 0 points, while the maximum point decrease was 1,923 points. The average percent decrease from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 20.21% decrease with a standard deviation of a 19.31% decrease.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Decrease Summary
Percent Decrease Summary
Score Decrease Histogram
Higher Baseline Raw Data
Higher Post-Injury 1 Score Summary
Of the 4,457 individuals who scored higher on the post-injury 1 test administration, the baseline mean visual motor composite score was observed to be 1,013.85 points with a standard deviation of 296.22 points. The post-injury 1 mean visual motor composite score was observed to be 1,229.04 points with a standard deviation of 287.05 points. The average point increase from baseline to post-injury 1 test administration was observed to be 215.19 points with a standard deviation of 179.09 points. The minimum point increase was 1 point, while the maximum point increase was 1,561 points. The average percent increase from baseline to post-injury 1 was observed to be a 39.89% increase with a standard deviation of a 206.40% increase.
Baseline Score Summary
Baseline Score Histogram
Post-Injury Score Summary
Post-Injury Score Histogram
Score Increase Summary
Percent Increase Summary
Score Increase Histogram
Higher Post-Injury 1 Raw Data
Visual Motor Paired T-Test Results
A paired T-test was used to compare the visual motor composite scores of all 7,951 individuals who completed a baseline and post-injury 1 test. On average, individuals scored significantly higher on the post-injury 1 test administration (M = 1,114.98) than the baseline test administration (M = 1,099.58), t(7950) = -4.52, p < .001.
Boxplot
T-Test Results
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: pi_visual_motor_baseline and pi_visual_motor_pi
## t = -4.5182, df = 7950, p-value = 6.328e-06
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -22.084477 -8.719699
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences
## -15.40209Baseline Total Descriptive Statistics
Baseline Total Score Histogram
Post-Injury Total Descriptive Statistics
Post-Injury Total Score Histogram
Paired T-Test Summary
The results of the paired t-tests across all five composite scores for comparison of baseline and post-injury 1 performance identified that individuals, on average, scored significantly higher on the baseline test administration of the verbal memory, visual memory, and impulse control composites. Conversely, individuals were identified to score, on average, significantly higher on the post-injury 1 test administration of the reaction time and visual motor composites.